1.1 Psychology is a Science

• The methods of psychological research may be different from those found in chemistry, physics, or biology - but we still follow the same principals in how we conduct our investigations.

• To be scientific, we must first be empirical, that is, to rely upon systemic and controlled observations of a phenomenon. We cannot be purely intuitive, which is to make decision off of “gut feeling”.

  • But, intuition can be part of the scientific process, more on that later

• Our scientific procedures may be compromised by confounding variables, poor ethical conduct, or limitations in design - we will discuss all of these throughout the semester

  • Scientific studies are often comprised of a balance of numerous practical choices impacting different parts of the validity of the study.

• Example: Just like a chemist detailing each and every step in a successful or failed experiment, we must be equally detailed in our work as social scientists

1.2 Different Methods, Same Answers?

• There are many valid ways of conducting empirical/scientific research, many of which we will explore in this course
  • Different methods may explore the same overarching research question, but with different techniques, strengths, and weaknesses
• Examples of different methods :
  • Correlational vs. Experimental Research
  • Momentary vs. Longitudinal Research
  • Bivariate vs. Multivariate Research
• It is vital that you are able to both understand the methods of other researchers (consumer), and craft your own (producer)
  • In this course - homework and research proposal will help you strengthen both sets of skills, applying the knowledge you get in class.

2.1 Research Producers

• Research Production is the process of actually planning, designing, conducting, and reporting research - using the methods we discuss in this class
  • Producing research is often a requirement of advance training in psychology (e.g., M.S., Ph.D., etc.) - and also part of your undergraduate training here at GVSU (see PSY-350 and PSY-400)
• Being an author of research establishes your credibility as an expert in a certain area or topic, and advances your analytical and writing skills
  • However, only one study does not make you an expert - it is the full body of your scientific and empirical work that defines your ability
• Good research is almost always peer-reviewed, meaning it is vetted by other individuals in that discipline.
  • Peer-review is effectively a collaboration of research producers to only publish the most refined version of a study.
• Example: A scientist at a testing company (e.g., The College Board) runs analyses and reports on the metrics for the SAT over the last 5 years.

2.2 Research Consumers

• Applied practitioners of psychology in businesses, clinics, and schools must understand the state of scientific literature in their respective areas. This makes them consumers of research.
  • You will also be expected to be able to read research from journals during your training here at GVSU
• It is not enough to just read research, but also to be critical and mindful of how “good” research is done.
  • Just because research is “peer-reviewed” does not mean it is entirely free from limitations or problems!
  • Unfortunately, some research is not properly vetted all the way
• Example: A therapist applies a new, evidence-based technique for a client

2.3 How Producers and Consumers Compare

• Both producers and consumers play an important role in how science is applied:
  • Producers use strong research designs to demonstrate real effects and relationships
  • Consumers critically interpret research findings and carefully apply them to “real-world” problems
• Example: An educational psychologist ( producer ) complete a long-running study on the effectiveness of a cutting-edge intervention for disruptive behaviors in class, and a teacher ( consumer ) then implements it into their classroom management strategy.

3.1 Empiricism

• Scientists are empiricists that assess phenomena through rigorous and systemic thinking, testing, and writing

• It is not enough to just see a relationship once; instead we must be able to observe, measure, and elicit it consistently

• We may use evidence from our senses, or from measurement tools to establish the properties and behaviors of a certain idea

  • Not all procedures for measuring or operationalizing are built equal, and some may be more reliable and valid than others (more in week 5!)

• Example: Issac Newton does not watch an apple fall from a tree just once, he drops many apples and other objects and carefully observes each.

3.2 The Theory-Data Cycle

• Part of science is not just establishing theories and ideas, but updating them as new evidence supports or contrasts with existing frameworks
  • In order to do so, we must make specific hypotheses to test, and then report on the results of said testing
  • Effectively we move from Theory to Hypothesis to Data, which then either refutes or supports the original theory

3.3 Theories

• These are general statements or concepts about how a certain phenomenon is believed to behave.

• They are often multifaceted and expand over time as further information adds to and subtracts from understanding of a certain construct (Remember the Theory-Hypothesis-Data cycle from earlier!)

• These theories, oftentimes, try to describe some relationship of two or more constructs, whether that be a monkey and a figurine; a person and a treatment; a person and another person; etc.

• Most theories try to follow the rule of parsimony, that is, trying to fit the simplest-possible explanation for a phenomenon or observed behavior.

  • Note: not all things can be fully “simplified”, but we seek the most basic and straightforward explanation we can

3.4 Hypotheses

• These are much more specific statements that often serve as the foundation for any particular study. They should be pre-registered - and stated prior to the actual commencement of the planned study.

• Making hypotheses after a study, to fit the data, is unethical (we will later touch on this issue in Week 14).

• These may be made within the context of a broader theory, but are likely to focus more concretely on a predicted outcome with tangible measures (that could be wrong!)

• Several studies, led by several hypotheses, may all contribute to the development of a grander theory

3.5 Data

• Data is the output of an experiment or study, and contains the observations and tests that show significance or non-significance for the hypothesis, which aids in understanding whether the results support or refute the theory, respectively.

• Just like with crafting our hypothesis, we have a lot of input in how our data is treated and tested - different designs and measure will produce various outcomes.

3.6 Burden of Proof

• A singular study does not definitively prove a certain hypothesis or theory, nor can it fully disprove these. Rather, it may add to evidence for or against a certain idea.

• Example in writing: “This paper aids in understanding how CBT-I may be beneficial for individuals with depression. Results indicate a moderate effect of the treatment in reducing depression in the present study. Future research is needed to clarify the effect in different populations and contexts.”

• Put statistically: we never prove or disprove our null hypothesis (\(H_0\)), we just supply evidence for or against our alternative hypothesis (\(H_1\))

• Only once many studies have provided support for a theory, can we say the weight of evidence is in favor of it.

3.7 We Can be Wrong

• Falsifiability: Good research must allow for our theory and/or hypothesis to be flawed or erroneous. If this is not accounted for, we engage in confirmation bias, or effectively choosing to only investigate for our views.

  • Recall the Theory-Hypothesis-Data flowchart from earlier. Revision is a valid outcome of new data !

• It is critical that our design, statistics, and reporting make clear the possibility that a study is limited in its scope and abilities

• No one study is so perfectly designed that it can account for all edge cases in a phenomenon

3.8 Example of Theory-Hypothesis-Data: Harlow’s Monkeys

3.9 Norms for Scientific Research

• Robert Merton proposed a set of scientific norms that can and should guide our actions and behaviors in approaching and conducting research

• Universalism states that “science is for everyone” and that claims are not based solely upon the expertise or stature of the scientist, but rather, their methodology and rigor

  • Example: an undergraduate student can perform research the same as a doctoral student, and it will be measured by its strength, not the person who made is

• Communality is the concept that science is done in a community and as a collective, not only a small group of individuals.

  • Example: Even the authors of a published paper cite many others in their writing.

• Disinterestedness states that we must be guided by a commitment to truth and accurate knowledge, not by monetary gain or pushing of a particular ideology.

  • Example: A prominent medical scientist publishes results about concerning side effects of a drug, despite the fact that they have stock in the pharmaceutical producing the drug.

• Organized Skepticism says we must commit ourselves to be critical of everything, even ourselves ! We question things, not to simply be contrarian, but because we must understand the faults in existing knowledge.

  • Example: I strongly believe the MMPI to be a valid measure of personality, but I read a study that is critical of its accuracy.

3.10 Continuum of Research Contexts

• Basic Research is that done for theoretical purpose to expand knowledge or fundamental ideas
  • Example: EEG Electrodes and brain waves during a certain activity
• Translational Research is done in a more controlled environment, but now being applied to real people (or animals)
  • Example: Experimental study in a research lab of peoples reaction to a certain stimulus
• Applied Research happens more so in the “real world” where the findings from basic and translational research are applied to less-controlled contexts.
  • Example: Retrospective study on patient outcomes after a certain treatment

• ALL forms of research here are useful and important in the development of well-rounded and well-supported theories!
  • As you will learn throughout the semester, certain research designs will also lend themselves well to one of these types in particular.

3.11 “Publicly” Available Research

• Scientists communicate primarily through publishing findings in academic journals that use a system of editors and peer reviewers to ensure the rigor and validity of a study

• If a paper is published, it may be cited by future scientists in support of certain claims and arguments in papers, presentations, and reports. Or, others can also disagree and provide competing evidence in their own work.

  • A theory is not crafted from the work of just one author, but instead the synthesis of many different published articles
  • In psychological science we use APA style (in its 7th edition) to reference previous scientific work

• Journals may range in quality and rigor though! We will discuss some nuances in this later in the semester

• Also, some journals may be difficult to access, but there are many ways we may use the library resources to access the texts

3.12 Scientific Journalism

• Specialized journalists often try to bring scientific findings (published in journals) to a medium that is more acceptable to laypeople.

• However, these writings are not peer-reviewed the same as the original research - and may overstate, understate, or be reductive towards the “true” findings

• When in doubt \(\rightarrow\) always go to the original publication!!

  • Note: citing journalism about a study, rather than the study itself, may be improper attribution

Week 1 Lecture - Scientific Thinking || Undergraduate Research Methods in Psychology